John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I echo Senator Bradford's sentiments in regard to the work being done by the Department in respect of pension provision for the spouses of the self-employed and, specifically, farmers' wives, an issue which I raised in this House a number of years ago with the late Deputy Seamus Brennan when Minister for Social and Family Affairs, and one which he took on board. I am glad there is a constructive process underway in that regard.

I concur also with Senator Bradford's remarks in regard to the carer's allowance. This will be an even greater issue during the next couple of years in that children or carers previously in full-time employment and not in a position to provide their elderly relatives with necessary care and attention in the family home may in the future as a result of rising unemployment be in a position to do so. A particular issue which I believe the Government should have resolved during the period of the Celtic tiger is that of support and maintenance of carers, an issue which I have raised on a number of occasions. I believe society does not have enough regard for those people who opt to remove themselves from the workforce to care for a loved one. There is, and has been for the past ten or 11 years, a considerable case to be made for the removal of the means test in respect of people providing such care and attention. I realise, given the current financial situation, this is not likely to happen in the immediate future. However, given that, as a result of that financial situation, people will be in a position to provide that full-time care at home, a further relaxation of the rules surrounding the allowance should be considered by the Minister and her Department.

I echo the comments of Senator Cummins in respect of the back to education allowance and the changes that could be usefully made in this area at a time of economic downturn. People are seriously considering further education opportunities in terms of "upskilling", a word which, while I do not like to use, I understand its meaning. There is a strong case to be made for changes to the back to education allowance.

I wish to raise a couple of specific issues with the Minister. By and large, I welcome the Bill in terms of its extra provision for people on pensions and in respect of other specific categories. While there are some elements of good news in the Bill, as the Minister stated, it also provides for a number of cuts in various areas. In my time in the Oireachtas I have never seen, in either House, a speech produced in such a format as to make it almost illegible, a point also made earlier by Senator Norris.

While on the face of it, the €2 per week increase in the fuel allowance is to be welcomed, as Senator McFadden pointed out, this would not even cover the cost of a bail of briquettes. Also, the extension by two weeks of the period during which the allowance will be paid is, in my opinion, insufficient. While it is a tiny nudge in the right direction it is hardly fit to be termed a step in the right direction. Previous speakers, and Senator Cummins in particular, referred to the delays in assessing people for social welfare payments. I was recently presented with a case in respect of a 21 year old girl who, having worked for three years after she left full-time education, had to wait six months for the Department and, in particular the people with whom she was dealing, to process a social welfare payment. This is unacceptable, in particular at a time when, sadly, many more people will be seeking social welfare payments and unemployment assistance.

Perhaps the Minister will explain the reasoning behind the Government's decision in respect of child benefit for 18 year olds. The Government has been pretty generous in the past ten years in terms of increases in respect of child benefit. It took the decision, understandably, that the best way to remove children and their families from poverty was to increase this payment. However, the Government this year proposes to remove 18 year olds from eligibility for child benefit. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reasoning behind this. At the same time the child care supplement, which is payable in respect of children at the other end of the scale, five year olds, has been cut in half. The Government made a political decision in the past couple of years to directly pay the parents of these children additional money in an effort to remove them from poverty, an understandable decision given that the mechanism for child benefit was already in place and this would allow the money go directly to families. However, it has rowed back on that decision, which does not make any sense from my point of view. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position in this regard.